Author Topic: Whistle blowing on Global Warming  (Read 117125 times)

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
Re: Whistle blowing on Global Warming
« Reply #240 on: December 02, 2009, 03:22:31 PM »
Big loser is science itself.
The destruction of the original data (unforgiveable and unethical) means that their findings can neither be proved or refuted.
They were prepared (maybe did) to delete files rather than supply them under FOIA requests. (Illegal)
Subverted the peer review process.
Used their 'clout' to replace sceptics with sympathisers at influencial bodies.

For those alone not one of the players involved should ever be allowed to draw another public paycheck again!
But i guess thats what happens when scientists get too much involved in a political agenda, and it should serve as a warning/wake up call to the rest.

Would be kind of ironic if the man at the center of it all (Al 'baby') gets destroyed by the very thing he claimed to create (the Internet), wouldn't it?
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline Silat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
Re: For all you deniers and people that dont understand science
« Reply #241 on: December 02, 2009, 03:30:10 PM »
Pictures for those that cant comprehend the written word..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html
+Silat
"The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them." — Maya Angelou
"Conservatism offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future." B. Disraeli
"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason."

Offline Anaxogoras

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7072
Re: Whistle blowing on Global Warming
« Reply #242 on: December 02, 2009, 03:30:49 PM »
herd mentality.

No, that's a rhetorical device you're using to score a point as if this were cable TV.
gavagai
334th FS


RPS for Aces High!

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8269
Re: For all you deniers and people that dont understand science
« Reply #243 on: December 02, 2009, 05:14:05 PM »
Pictures for those that cant comprehend the written word..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html

LoL.  HuffnPuff Post???  You might as well quote Pravda.  :rolleyes:  I haven't seen so much spin since Break Dancing was in style.   :rofl

Manipulating data and encouraging others to delete email to hide conspiracy is apparently enough to cost Jones his career.  The civil suites they are getting slapped with will hopefully destroy him, and those like him financially.  The next step is to turn up the legal "heat".  Looks to me like data protected under the FOI act has been destroyed with direct quotes from Jones that that was his intention.  Start squeezing some of the academic thugs with possible jail time unless they give up the whole story and all those even slightly involved. UEA and other institutions should be completely excluded from public monies until they've totally clean house and assisted fully with all subsequent procecutions (i.e. turn over all original data, email databases, documents, internal memos, etc).           


Regards,
Wab




Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline batch

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 640
Re: Whistle blowing on Global Warming
« Reply #244 on: December 02, 2009, 06:41:13 PM »
ROFL... citing the paint huffer post as any type of proof you may as well have just quoted Al Goreski as the basis of fact
"theres nothin like wakin up with a Dickens Cider" - Dickens Fruit Stand

Offline CAP1

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22287
      • The Axis Vs Allies Arena
Re: Whistle blowing on Global Warming
« Reply #245 on: December 02, 2009, 06:47:23 PM »
No, that's a rhetorical device you're using to score a point as if this were cable TV.

you don't believe me?

go outside at a mall, or right outside your work. stand there looking up. watch how many people do the same.
ingame 1LTCAP
80th FS "Headhunters"
S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning in a Bottle)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Whistle blowing on Global Warming
« Reply #246 on: December 03, 2009, 04:26:31 AM »
herd mentality.

the "scientists" in the uk say it's so. they show "proof" that it is so. so the rest of the countries' "scientists" follow their lead.

 i agree, that our course of action should be re-thought.
You aren't really familiar with science or scientists, are you?
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Re: Whistle blowing on Global Warming
« Reply #247 on: December 03, 2009, 06:28:57 AM »
i may have missed something, so i ask this in seriousness, not to argue........but just how do we know co2 has a warming effect?
Controlled experiment: isolate a gas, see what happens when you subject it to thermal infrared radiation.
This is actually a good question.
The "green house effect" is caused by the way radiation transfers through the atmosphere. Different kind of gases are opaque to different wavelengths of light in a very complex way. Tracking the energy flow through the atmosphere (influx from the sun heating and out flux from the earth cooling) is radiative transfer. The spectrum changes as it goes through the atmosphere and calculating this is a very difficult business both in terms of computing power and interms of the physics of matter-radiation interaction involved.

The layman argument is that CO2 is mostly transparent to the sunlight but absorbs and reflect IR, therefore it lets the sun heat the earth but does not let the earth cool by emitting IR. This is not oversimplification - it is just plane wrong. The net energy flux that goes in is exactly the same as goes out, otherwise the earth (or your green house) will heat forever. What it does is that it forces the spectrum to change in order to pass through. Yes, one way in which the spectrum changes is when the emitting body gets hotter. This shifts the spectrum into shorter wavelengths in which more radiation can pass. But there are many other effects that can suddenly make the atmosphere more transparent. For example: much of the absorption and re-emission of molecules happens in specific wavelengths (or "lines"). Once there is enough molecules to make the lines saturate (not letting any photon to pass), adding more gas has almost no additional effect. If the atmosphere itself gets warmer, the wavelengths at which the molecules absorb become "smeared" by the Doppler effect (the molecules are moving faster when hotter). They absorb in a wider range of wavelengths but less at each and suddenly spectral lines (emission at specific wavelength) that were completely absorbed can pass through, while re-emitted radiation by this gas has its spectrum blurred and shifted out of the absorption wavelengths of the next atmospheric layer. Now mix may of these gases together, in a varying vertical structure and try to propagate the spectrum through it.

A controlled experiment can give us the parameters we need for the quantum radiation-matter interactions, but will not help us solve the radiation transfer through the atmosphere, nor many many other secondary effects. Simplified computer models can give "good" approximations, but not good enough for the whole climate debate, where simplification induced errors are larger than the expected effect. Recent improved calculations with a MUCH better treatment of the radiation transfer show that most of the effect of increased CO2 is changing the vertical thermal structure of the atmosphere, but almost no effect at ground level even if the CO2 content is increased by factor 10. This however only refers to the specific problem of radiation transfer and disregards plethora of other issues.

Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline 33Vortex

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4754
      • Dirac's equation (non truncated)
Re: Whistle blowing on Global Warming
« Reply #248 on: December 03, 2009, 07:16:16 AM »
Bozon that was perhaps the best post so far.  :aok

Anyone who claim this issue to be settled, is just plain lying.

GameID: Turner
Truth has no agenda.

Offline CAP1

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22287
      • The Axis Vs Allies Arena
Re: Whistle blowing on Global Warming
« Reply #249 on: December 03, 2009, 07:51:06 AM »
You aren't really familiar with science or scientists, are you?

don't really need to be. what i see is obvious.
ingame 1LTCAP
80th FS "Headhunters"
S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning in a Bottle)

Offline CAP1

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22287
      • The Axis Vs Allies Arena
Re: Whistle blowing on Global Warming
« Reply #250 on: December 03, 2009, 07:58:19 AM »
This is actually a good question.
The "green house effect" is caused by the way radiation transfers through the atmosphere. Different kind of gases are opaque to different wavelengths of light in a very complex way. Tracking the energy flow through the atmosphere (influx from the sun heating and out flux from the earth cooling) is radiative transfer. The spectrum changes as it goes through the atmosphere and calculating this is a very difficult business both in terms of computing power and interms of the physics of matter-radiation interaction involved.

The layman argument is that CO2 is mostly transparent to the sunlight but absorbs and reflect IR, therefore it lets the sun heat the earth but does not let the earth cool by emitting IR. This is not oversimplification - it is just plane wrong. The net energy flux that goes in is exactly the same as goes out, otherwise the earth (or your green house) will heat forever. What it does is that it forces the spectrum to change in order to pass through. Yes, one way in which the spectrum changes is when the emitting body gets hotter. This shifts the spectrum into shorter wavelengths in which more radiation can pass. But there are many other effects that can suddenly make the atmosphere more transparent. For example: much of the absorption and re-emission of molecules happens in specific wavelengths (or "lines"). Once there is enough molecules to make the lines saturate (not letting any photon to pass), adding more gas has almost no additional effect. If the atmosphere itself gets warmer, the wavelengths at which the molecules absorb become "smeared" by the Doppler effect (the molecules are moving faster when hotter). They absorb in a wider range of wavelengths but less at each and suddenly spectral lines (emission at specific wavelength) that were completely absorbed can pass through, while re-emitted radiation by this gas has its spectrum blurred and shifted out of the absorption wavelengths of the next atmospheric layer. Now mix may of these gases together, in a varying vertical structure and try to propagate the spectrum through it.

A controlled experiment can give us the parameters we need for the quantum radiation-matter interactions, but will not help us solve the radiation transfer through the atmosphere, nor many many other secondary effects. Simplified computer models can give "good" approximations, but not good enough for the whole climate debate, where simplification induced errors are larger than the expected effect. Recent improved calculations with a MUCH better treatment of the radiation transfer show that most of the effect of increased CO2 is changing the vertical thermal structure of the atmosphere, but almost no effect at ground level even if the CO2 content is increased by factor 10. This however only refers to the specific problem of radiation transfer and disregards plethora of other issues.



wow.  :aok

best reply yet......
ingame 1LTCAP
80th FS "Headhunters"
S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning in a Bottle)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Whistle blowing on Global Warming
« Reply #251 on: December 03, 2009, 09:43:51 AM »
And therefor, through the history of the globe, co2 never had any influence on the temperature  :rolleyes:
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline 33Vortex

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4754
      • Dirac's equation (non truncated)
Re: Whistle blowing on Global Warming
« Reply #252 on: December 03, 2009, 10:37:20 AM »
Of course it does Angus, it's just a incredibly complex equation. There are a lot of scientists who jump on the bandwagon because it's good for their career, it's good money and those who oppose the GW theories don't get publicity nor much credit if any at all for their findings. To say that the issue is settled is just wishful thinking. The atmosphere is made up of a number of gases and they interact differently with eachother and radiation at different altitudes. Thermal radiation is a tricky business in this context, as bozon explained in a good way.

We can never have enough computing power when it comes to these problems, but we definitely need better scientists who do their work for the sake of science and not their personal gains.

Edit: spellcheck  :P
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 11:06:24 AM by 33Vortex »

GameID: Turner
Truth has no agenda.

Offline CAP1

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22287
      • The Axis Vs Allies Arena
Re: Whistle blowing on Global Warming
« Reply #253 on: December 03, 2009, 10:55:24 AM »
Of course it does Angus, it's just a incredibly complex equation. There are a lot of scientists who jump on the bandwagon because it's good for their career, it's good money and those who oppose the GW theories don't get publicity nor much credit if any at all for their findings. To say that the issue is settled is just wishful thinking. The atmosphere is made up of a number of gases and they interact differently with eachother and radiation at different altitudes. Thermal radiation is a tricky business in this context, as bozon explained in a good way.

We can never have enough computing power when it comes to these problems, and we definititely need better scientists too who do their work for the sake of science and not their personal gains.

ok......according to the great karnak, you also must not be familiar with science or scientists.  :neener:
ingame 1LTCAP
80th FS "Headhunters"
S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning in a Bottle)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Whistle blowing on Global Warming
« Reply #254 on: December 03, 2009, 12:48:46 PM »
Of course it does Angus, it's just a incredibly complex equation. There are a lot of scientists who jump on the bandwagon because it's good for their career, it's good money and those who oppose the GW theories don't get publicity nor much credit if any at all for their findings. To say that the issue is settled is just wishful thinking. The atmosphere is made up of a number of gases and they interact differently with eachother and radiation at different altitudes. Thermal radiation is a tricky business in this context, as bozon explained in a good way.

We can never have enough computing power when it comes to these problems, but we definitely need better scientists who do their work for the sake of science and not their personal gains.

Edit: spellcheck  :P

Sow how many of you all belive that the human terraforming (read deforestation) as well as added components into our atmosphere has no impact at all????????

(FYI, I belive that since co2 has reached enormous amounts in the past, it won't be the end of times with some GW, just VERY uncomfortable when "hell" breaks loose, - much more uncomfortable than the measures being taken, - and even I am a bit sceptic on them)
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)